GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2011-02 > 1298069185


From: Doug Thompson <>
Subject: Re: Ancestry of Beatrix de Braose/de Brewes (who m Hugh Shirley)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:46:25 -0800 (PST)
References: <mailman.10.1298057868.27238.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>


The statement concerning Beatrix's age is in the IPM of John de
Brewes. You can see it here:

http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/family/inquest.html

The information is given by jurors at Horsham. It is possible that
none of them had seen Beatrix for many years. She had been married to
Hugh Shirley for over 30 years by then and was not based in Sussex.
THe age must be regarded as a vague statement.

In Beatrix's own IPM for Leicestershire, the jurors say her son Ralph
is aged "40 years and more" although other evidence points to him
being 48. The jurors are not trying to give accurate ages.

Doug Thompson







On Feb 18, 7:37 pm, wrote:
> In a message dated 2/18/2011 4:50:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>
> writes:
> > Your argument concerning the age statement is correct Derek. But the more
>
> > pertinent fact is that Joan Percy's estates went to her sisters, not John
> > or
> > Beatrix de Brewes, so it is unlikely they could have been her children.
>
> I can't accept this.
> It's one thing to say a person is "60 or more" when they are in fact 64 or
> 67 even.  But I think anyone would be hard-pressed to expect a person of 75
> to 80 years old to be called "60 or more".
>
> I'm also not certain we can state that this IPMs were always done on the
> eye-witness accounts of those questioned.  Are there not examples of
> statements given to which the person could not be an eye witness themselves ?


This thread: